Soft Proofing workflow

[FrankG]

Would it be the typical workflow that once the images are prepared, on a calibrated monitor & in a col corrected environment,  that prior to printing you would soft proof them with the appropriate paper/print profile,
and that if they have changed significantly, or look incorrect,  you would then go back to adjust the files accordingly
until they do look how you want them to look - when viewed as a soft proof ?
View>Proof Setup>Custom>select the profile under Device To Simulate & toggle the preview on/off  (Rendering Intent = Relative Colorimetric & black point compensation checked & simulate paper col checked.)

[Mark D Segal]

That's one valid approach. If you make adjustments to tone or colour specific to that soft-proof, it's a good idea to do them on separate adjustment layers and name them accordingly, so you will know the destination of those adjustments any time in the future and be able to change them non-destructively if you decide to re-purpose the image (say another kind of paper or printer).

[FrankG]

Thanks Mark.
Adj layers as you suggest or even a duplicate file to keep the original unaffected.

I just had a situation today when I picked up some c-prints from a top lab in Toronto and they didnt match my screen (calibrated  et al) at all.
Prior to uploading the files they had recommended leaving the files in my workspace (AdobeRGB(1998)) and not converting to the paper/printer profile that they make available online.

Back home tonight when I open the files they look great on screen and not like the prints. But when I softproof them with the appropriate profile they do indeed look like the prints. This makes me realise I should have soft proofed first, then altered the files until they looked how I wanted them to look When Viewed In the SoftProof Profile even if they'd have looked incorrect on my screen without the softproofing.

I just wanted to check that this is the way to do it hence my post.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Mark.
Adj layers as you suggest or even a duplicate file to keep the original unaffected.

I just had a situation today when I picked up some c-prints from a top lab in Toronto and they didnt match my screen (calibrated  et al) at all.
Prior to uploading the files they had recommended leaving the files in my workspace (AdobeRGB(1998)) and not converting to the paper/printer profile that they make available online.

Back home tonight when I open the files they look great on screen and not like the prints. But when I softproof them with the appropriate profile they do indeed look like the prints. This makes me realise I should have soft proofed first, then altered the files until they looked how I wanted them to look When Viewed In the SoftProof Profile even if they'd have looked incorrect on my screen without the softproofing.

I just wanted to check that this is the way to do it hence my post.

It may be an idea to give them several images adjusted under soft-proof using their profile as the device to simulate but without converting the working space, and see whether what comes back this time matches the final result of your soft-proof. Both should look the way you want them if they are printing consistently and your monitor has the right luminance.

[FrankG]

Good idea. I'll do that.
I get a great screen to print match here on my epson 3880 with canned profiles (& with maybe a small adj/curves midtone tweak) so I have ignored the soft proofing step.
I was rather shocked today and it'll be a lesson.

[FrankG]

I realise that every image is unique and needs it's own set of adjustments, as every photographer is unique and has his/her individual tastes, & every paper/printer profile is different, but is there a 'general' idea of what the typical adjustments might be in order to match a soft proofed image to the original.
I just 'played' with a couple and am quite surprised by the contrast & col differences and how much re-working it may need to get a match.
It aint no one-click pony :-)

[Mark D Segal]

Usually some added contrast (Curves Adj) and perhaps moderate amount of saturation (Vibrance or HSL Adj). Depends very much on the media.

[FrankG]

thanks...just tried a quick fix & those two adj put me in the ball park

[FrankG]

Seems like a lot of extra image editing to be done once you're done editing your image & are ready to print.
I guess once you figure what adjustments (curves, hsl) are necessary for any given printing profile, in order
to make the soft proof preview match your original, then you can save the steps as a PS Action to apply to other prints to be printed the same way e.g. at the same lab on the same paper.
Are actions the way others are doing it (workflow) ?

[digitaldog]

Keep in mind that if you build a layer group of the adjustment layers (be sure to label them with the output profile used and rendering intent), you can drag and drop the onto other images being printed with the same profile rendering intent and maybe not even need to tweak further.

This illustrates how having soft proofing in Lightroom, edits that are output specific and metadata only would make printing there oh so nice.

[Mark D Segal]

No. I find each photo needs its own adjustments, and the extent of adjustment I need is not very challenging. I don't see the benefit of using Actions for this. What kind of paper are you printing on?

I agree with Andrew that it would be wonderful to have soft-proofing in LR. Any idea when it's coming Andrew?

[digitaldog]

What kind of paper are you printing on?

Usually luster.

[Mark D Segal]

Good to know Andrew - I'm usually using Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, also like Canson Baryta Photographique. Both need very little soft-proofing in an Epson 4900, which prints rather similarly to the 3800/3880; why I was interested in what paper FrankG is using, as he seems to be having more of a softproofing challenge.

[FrankG]

When I print on my new 3880 on Exhibition Fiber or Canson or Ilford I have not had an issue (admittedly I've only had the printer for a few weeks and not done more than a handful). I am thrilled with the prints - screen to print match !
I just had a project which needed to  be done as c-prints so I prepared and uploaded the files to a good lab here in Toronto. They were done on Fuji Matte (crystal archive) paper.
I need to improve my workflow to get better results next time.

I just tested this method:
Opened my corrected file.
Made a duplicate which I could view side-by-side.
Soft proofed the duplicate to the lab's profile.
Created 2 adjustment layers to get a match to the original.
Created a new group from these 2 adj layers and named it for the paper 9e.g Fuji_Mattte)

Now....If I have other files to print on the same paper I can simply open them & drag this group onto them.
Excuse the ignorant question but how do I save the group of adj layers for future use.

[Mark D Segal]

The matte paper explains the extra soft-proofing challenge. It has a lower contrast range, less black density than your display. I've never saved Layers separately from an image. An Action may be the preferred approach here. Once you run the Action, you can then re-adjust the layers it creates as the specific images require.

[FrankG]

The matte paper explains the extra soft-proofing challenge. It has a lower contrast range, less black density than your display. I've never saved Layers separately from an image. An Action may be the preferred approach here. Once you run the Action, you can then re-adjust the layers it creates as the specific images require.

However, I just soft proofed the gloss & other papers they offer (Agfa D-lab printer - Fuji gloss & matte, Kodak gloss & matte, & even other printer profiles in gloss & matte e.g. Lightjet).
They all look way off my original. The best single term I can come up with to describe them is that they look "muddy" or "murky".

Anyway...via the thread I now have a better handle on how to prep & view the files before sending them in. Thanks.

[Mark D Segal]

You are welcome.

[FrankG]

...one last small point of interest....of all the printer/paper profiles (I have various lab c-types and various inkjets for my 3880) the one that departs least from my original image when previewed under soft proofing is Canson Baryta Photographique

[Garnick]

No. I find each photo needs its own adjustments, and the extent of adjustment I need is not very challenging. I don't see the benefit of using Actions for this.

I agree completely, every image is different and may have its own specific soft proof adjustments. I find that Epson Luster tends to be pretty consistent and easy to soft proof, but there can be subtle differences from image to image. And I also agree that matte papers are the most difficult to soft proof. Sometimes it's still difficult to believe that I have to make such drastic adjustments until I see the first test. That usually confirms that the adjustments were indeed a good starting point and that soft proofing does really work as advertised. Since a lot of my work is printed on Luster I don't usually keep notes, except to perhaps remind me of the degree of output sharpening that was used, since retaining the sharpening layers simply adds to the file size. However, when printing on fine art papers or canvas I generally leave an "annotation/sticky note" for pertinent information.

And by the way Frank, to save layers as a group, while in the layers palette click the triangle at the right side and chose "New Group" and move the layers into the folder. To the best of my knowledge there is no way of saving a layer or group of layers separately from the image file. They are part of the file and cannot be saved as a separate entity.

Gary